“We did the best we could under the circumstances” is neither an answer nor an excuse whatsoever. What circumstances? Prior to the release, no one knew this was coming. There was no one looking over their shoulder. They had an exclusive and plenty of leeway with time.

The McFarlands stonewalled. And obviously, no one on the NYT’s staff did anything extra to even verify any details about the party on their second shot, so this wasn’t even an autopsy of a story, not even any serious detective work. No mention of contacting the high school coach for any insight. While UT may not have been able to comment with regard to JM directly, they could have responded to such a story, which is an entity apart, particularly the allegations concerning what could be construed as NCAA violations at some level.

There is nothing to indicate the New York Times recognized the magnitude of the allegations made nor made the slightest effort to validate anything more than what the story said. The two prior mistakes mentioned in the overall story – the fictitious phone call from Sen. Kennedy to Gov. Paterson and the fake letter from the mayor of Paris – showed multiple levels of mistakes. So does the McFarland story, but it gets whitewashed as the best they could do under the circumstances, all of which were under their control. That is a piss poor excuse and completely insufficient. The Public Editor sinks to the level of the rest of his minions, which, I’m sure, is the best he can do under the circumstances.

Good point on the private rebuke. I have my doubts on the “efforts will be curtailed” deal, as outlined below. I think the root of this problem is allowing an uncontrolled (theoretically investigative) reporter free rein. Obviously, that’s what happened here.

There are two other disconcerting points that come to mind in the JM story:

One is that entities like the NYT (they’re far from alone, but they may be No. 1 among the guilty) has a kind of template regarding big-time college athletics. They feel it’s “professionalism masquerading as amateur sport,” they avidly oppose the concept, they WANT TO BELIEVE it’s as dirty as this story makes it seem, and they look the other way ethically to validate those views.

The other issue concerns the writer: You get promoted in this business by breaking stories, getting there first, going where no reporter has gone. Editors and personnel in the hiring business see the writer of this kind of story as an intellect, a go-getter, somebody who will ask tough questions and challenge big issues. Reporters look for chances get their names attached to these kinds of stories because pay raises and better jobs often follow. To the reporter, the end justifies the means. And, as many of us have noted for a month, organizational responsibility before publishing the story is ignored.